Wednesday, January 18, 2012

This class addresses one of the questions I hear most frequently from physicians: May I take call on Shabbat?And its corollary: May I switch with a non-observant Jewish physician?And then the inevitable follow-up: May I drive home from the hospital after working there on Shabbat?

The class is next Monday, after which I hope to post a link to the audio on-line. I already have an audio and source sheet on-line from a version of this I delivered two years ago, but that was more textual; this will be more practical.

One may not embark on a boat for an optional trip within three days of Shabbat, but one may do so for a mitzvah purpose. Rebbe said: One must arrange with the boat to halt. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: This is not necessary. One may travel from Tyre to Cidon even on Friday.

One may not lay siege within three days of Shabbat, but one need not halt a siege which already began.

Some say that they decreed [regarding ships] because of violation of Shabbat by crossing the techum… but this is questionable… For then why would they mention three days? Even more would be prohibited! Further, why would travel be permitted for a mitzvah?...

Rather, we don't embark on a boat within three days of Shabbat because it would undermine the mitzvah of enjoying Shabbat; one suffers the effects of change due to the shifting of the boat, for three days… But one may embark for a mitzvah, because then one is exempt from the enjoyment of Shabbat; one who is involved in one mitzvah is exempt from a competing mitzvah.

All three days preceding Shabbat are called "before Shabbat" and one who embarks appears to have decided to violate Shabbat, for nothing stands before saving a life. The same would apply to embarking into the wilderness or some other dangerous place, such that one is destined to violate Shabbat.

One who says "[I will return] after the Sabbatical cycle" means within a year afterward. "After a year" means within a month afterward. "After a month" means within a week afterward. What about "after a week"? R' Zeira said before R' Asi, or R' Asi said before R' Yochanan: Sunday, Monday and Tuesday are "after Shabbat", and Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are "before Shabbat".

5.Code of Jewish Law (16th century Israel and Poland), Orach Chaim 248:2, 4

248:2 – We don’t embark on a boat within three days of Shabbat due to enjoyment of Shabbat, for people are pained and confused during the first three days. This is specifically when travelling on salty seas, but there is no pain in travelling on rivers…

248:4 – We may not embark on a caravan within three days of Shabbat, if it is well-known that we will need to violate Shabbat due to the danger of halting there alone on Shabbat. We may embark on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, and if danger occurs afterward and we need to violate Shabbat to save lives, it is permitted and that is not termed 'desecration.'

We may embark to ascend to Israel even if we only find a caravan on Friday, for this is a mitzvah. We must arrange with them to halt, and then we may travel beyond the techum with them to save our lives, if they refuse to halt with us.

Rama: Some say that anywhere a person travels for business or greeting a friend is considered a mitzvah; 'optional' refers only to touring…

When the physician knows this on Friday, he is obligated to stay in a house close to the hospital; certainly, he will be able to acquire a place to stay, even if he must pay rent to stay there. One may not permit him to go home, for this would bring him to violate Shabbat the next day, to travel to the hospital. Even if there is no place to stay near the hospital, he can stay in the hospital itself – even if he will not have wine for kiddush and a good meal in honour of Shabbat, he must remain there; the mitzvot of Shabbat meals and kiddush do not override the prohibition against melachah on Shabbat.

Vignette 2: Switching with a doctor who is not observant

7.Talmud, Niddah 61b

ת"ר: בגד שאבד בו כלאים - הרי זה לא ימכרנו לעובד כוכבים

If a garment has unrecognizable wool and linen blended into it, a Jew may not sell it to a non-Jew.

One may not sell the following items to idolaters [because they are likely to be used for pagan offerings]…

One may sell it in bulk… But why are we not concerned lest he sell it to someone who will burn it for incense? Abbaye explained: We are instructed not to place a stumbling block before him, but we are not instructed about 'before before' him.

We have great reason to permit switching with non-observant Jews, for they would violate Shabbat intentionally in their homes with any melachot which came to hand, no less than they would in the hospital. There is no lifnei iver;they exchange some melachot for others. Further, the violation is reduced in a hospital; these acts are permitted on behalf of many patients, and many of these acts are only rabbinically prohibited, while much of what he would do at home is biblically prohibited.

Rav Huna tore silks before his son Rabbah, saying, "I will see if he gets angry at not." But would he not be in violation of "Do not put a stumbling block before the blind"? Rav Huna forgave his honour [in advance].

R' Shlomo Kluger explained this further. We believe that Shabbat is overridden, rather than permitted, for a patient. Rabbinic prohibitions are entirely permitted, though, for the sages prohibited and the sages permitted, and we can say that they permitted [to return home at] the end in order to ensure people would go at the beginning.

Neither R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach nor the Tzitz Eliezer permit violation of biblical Shabbat law under the principle of 'permit the end for the sake of the beginning'. They depend on the Chatam Sofer to permit violating rabbinical Shabbat law; as R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wrote, "The elder has already ruled." If so, then as the Tzitz Eliezer concluded, a Jew [who has travelled to save lives] may return home in a non-Jew's vehicle.

6 comments:

The doctor whose shift is 9AM-9PM Saturday, and wants to stay home Friday night so his kids have a dad for at least part of shabbos, then oops now it's 8AM he has to drive to the hospital: it's the proactive obligation of "don't put yourself into a situation whereby you'll be required to violate shabbos", but what of the tzorech mitzva waiver for the ship? Seems to be the case Igros Moshe addressed -- though he only mentioned the shabbos meal on the plus side, do we take the parenting effect into account?

I noticed the R'Moshe and the Beis HaLevi on onness. I gave a shiur this past shabbos on the topic and notwithstanding that some associate the beis halevi with this question (there is a teshuva of the tzitz eliezer I believe), I think that the beis halevi - dealing with onness is not relevant to the question that RMoshe is discussing of whether it is better for a mechalel shabbos doctor to be at home or in the hospital. I can explain more but interested in your take.

Basically b/c RMoshe and the beis halevi are talking about two differnt things. THe Beis HAlevi is talking about when the petur of onness does and does not apply and based on the Hafla'ah from Kesuvos, the Beis HaLevi explains that the petur from onshim does not apply where one would have violated the issur even without the onness.

What RMoshe (and RSZA and those who argue with RMoshe) is discussing is the heter to do melacha for pikuach nefesh on shabbos. That is NOT because of onness, but rather based on the klal that pikuach nefesh is docheh all issurim (whether from va-chai bahem or another source, per the sugya in Yoma and the rishonim in Sanhedrin, with which I am sure you are familiar). Even being sick yourself is not considered an onness to patur yourself from issurim -- of course there are other bases for a petur but it is not oness. See Rambam Yesodei haTorah 5:6 and Or Sameach there (and there are a number of other rayahs to this idea).

Thus, one could argue whether the heter of (or perhaps imperative of) va-chai ba-hem applies if you would be mechalel shabbos anyway, (though it doesnt seem so likely that it would not apply just because someone would be mechalel shabbos anyway). But this whole discussion is not based on onness and therefore, does not seem to be relevant to RMoshe's discussion. (Note RMoshe does not use the word "onness" either.)

anon1-Thanks for taking the time to spell that out.I agree that the parallel between oness and pikuach nefesh is not precise. However, I think the fundamental point the Beis haLevi is making is that violating law out of personal choice rather than due to halachic justification is inappropriate, and unjustified. This applies regardless of what the halachic justification would have been.